The court's decision cheered opponents of a proposed Oregon initiative that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse to provide goods and services for same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies if they cite religious objections.

"By
rejecting the argument that this case is about religious freedom, the
Supreme Court has made it clear what it is really about --
discrimination," said Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Oregon United for Marriage, in a statement. He expressed optimism that more Oregonians were reaching the same conclusion.

Shawn Lindsay, legal counsel for Friends of Religious Freedom, the group sponsoring the Oregon initiative, downplayed the impact of the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case.

Lindsay said in a text that the court often declines to take specific cases for a variety of reasons.

The case involved of Elane Photography and its owner, Elaine Huguenin. She refused to participate in the same-sex ceremony, saying it would violate her religious beliefs.

She was charged with violating New Mexico's law prohibiting businesses from refusing to serve customers because of their sexual orientation. All told, 21 states, including Oregon, have similar laws.

While the photographer cited religious objections, the appeal to the Supreme Court focused on the argument that New Mexico's law violated Huguenin's free-speech rights.

Explained the Los Angeles Times:

Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom said the New Mexico anti-discrimination law would force the photographer to “create expression” in violation of her beliefs. Critics called the law a form of "compelled speech."

The appeal argued that a state anti-bias law, when applied broadly, would “require individuals who create expression for a living -- like marketers, advertisers, publicists and website designers -- to speak in conflict with their consciences.”

The appeal argued that this narrow exemption should not include “denials of service by caterers, hotels, limousine service operators and the like.”

The Supreme Court, following its usual practice, did not explain why it refused to hear the case. The court is hearing a separate case involving whether an employer can refuse to provide contraceptive coverage as required under the Affordable Care Act because of religious objections.